“To those who doubt, to those who ask is it possible or those who do not believe, I say accomplishment of a world without America and Israel is both possible and feasible” – President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in Tehran, 2005

If world history has taught us anything, it’s that when a dangerous dictator threatens the world with murderous threats of genocide, we better believe him. So when President Ahmadinejad threatens “to wipe the Zionist entity off the face of the Earth” and when Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei argues that “Our Islamic system should be viewed as an enemy and an intolerable rival by such an oppressive power as the United States”, we cannot continue to waver in our response. But, in order to properly understand the degree to which Iran threatens the world it is necessary to understand the Iranian regime at hand.

Iran has sponsored terrorist activities in 25 countries and 5 continents around the world. The regime has brutally suppressed and murdered it’s own people, tried to kill our Saudi Ambassador, has helped President Assad massacre his own people, and has stated at every possible opportunity its desire for a MASS GENOCIDE of the Jewish people. President Ahmadinejad does this in the very same speeches in which he denies the Holocaust; the last attempt to wipe out the Jewish People. Christians and Jews in Iran have Dhimmi status, meaning they are legally less equal, often perilously so, in society to their Muslim countrymen. The degradation of women and the brutal atrocities suffered by gays, secular Muslims, or any other group deemed unworthy in Iran, is too graphic to explain in writing. Can you imagine an Iran with nuclear weapons? Even if Iran were not to immediately use a nuclear weapon upon its completion, it’s leaders will be emboldened to act even more aggressively and purse terrorism more recklessly, knowing that it has such a weapon at its disposal.

Those who argue that Iran would never use nuclear weapons in fear of retaliation (using the Soviet Union and the theory of Mutually Assured Destruction to defend their position) fail to understand that Iran is a radical Islamic regime and is not relatable to a secular Communist one. Thus Iran doesn’t necessarily see its actions in terms of wins and losses; there are only believers and infidels.  As Middle Eastern scholar Bernard Lewis explained, to the Iranian leaders, who believe that Islam must rule the world through the subjugation or murder of all nonbelievers (regardless of how many Muslims must die),  “mutually ensured destruction is not a deterrent but an inducement”. Former President Khomeini (before Ahmadinejad) has even exclaimed, “We do not worship Iran, we worship Allah. For patriotism is another name for paganism. I say let this land [Iran] burn. I say let this land go up in smoke, provided Islam emerges triumphant in the rest of the world.” The Iranian regime and their proxies’ Hamas’ and Hezbollah’s frequent use of suicide bombers and their hero worship towards terrorists who kill innocent civilians should indicate that they believe the goal of “throwing the Jews into the sea” is worth dying for.

Thus, When “moderate” former President Akbar Rafsanjani tells the world that an Israeli blow to Iran will “harm the Muslim world” while “the use of a nuclear bomb will destroy everything in Israel” and that it is not “Irrational to contemplate such a possibility,” can we really have any more delusions about Iranian rationality? Using Iran’s supposed rationality as an argument as to why Iran’s quest for nuclear weapons isn’t threatening is akin to Chamberlain, after first appeasing him, foolishly believing Hitler would suddenly change his aggressive behavior at the start of WW2. Hitler, then, and the Iranian Mullahs, now, each outlined exactly what they planned to do, and so far America is refusing to acknowledge the threats, just as the British and French did in the late 1930s.

It is a known fact that Israel has had nuclear weapons for decades; why isn’t there international outcry about Israel’s nuclear arsenal? It’s because the world knows, despite constant threats and attacks from Arab nations, that Israel would never use such devastating weapons in attacks of aggression. It’s the same reason that Arabs in Israel enjoy the greatest freedom of Arabs anywhere in the Middle East.

We, as Americans, have to understand that the threat of a nuclear Iran is not just Israel’s problem; it threatens our safety and security in the United States, and it’s not something we can just wish away through empty words. The threat of a nuclear Iran is not lost on fellow Middle Eastern Muslim nations, most of which wholeheartedly oppose this dangerous possibility. They understand the threat that Iran poses will make an already unstable region that much more dangerous and conflict ridden and could allow Iran to become a regional power. This is why Bahrainian king Hamad bin Isa Al-Khalifa, has declared,  “the danger of letting Iran’s nuclear program go on is greater than the danger of stopping it.” The leaders of Saudi Arabia,UAE, Turkey, and Pakistan have expressed similar sentiments. These facts should make us realize that stopping Iran is a matter of global security.

While Iran having nuclear weapons is dangerous in its own right, the company that Iran keeps makes this threat even more horrifying. The terrorist groups Hamas and Hezbollah, operating out of the Gaza Strip and Southern Lebanon respectively, are Iranian proxies, receiving 70,000 rockets, in addition to money and political support from the brutal Iranian regime. Hezbollah, in recent years, has murdered 243 US marine soldiers in Lebanon, engages in terror against Israel with impunity, and whose leader Hassan Nasrallah has said “If Jews all gather in Israel, it will save us the trouble of going after them worldwide.” It doesn’t take much to imagine how disastrous it would be for the security of America, Israel and other states that stand in the way of a global Caliphate, for these terrorists to come into possession of nuclear weapons.

As Iran continues along the path towards nuclear capability, the rest of the region will likely respond in kind, as articulated by an op-ed in the New York Times on March 21st,  “An Iranian atom bomb will force Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Egypt to acquire their own atom bombs. An Iranian atom bomb will give radical Islam overwhelming influence, and will help to spread terror, and destabilize moderate Arab nations.” With help from the Obama administration, The Muslim brotherhood,a radical anti-western and anti-semetic organization originally allied with the Nazis, has gained power in Egypt, are threatening to do so in Syria (with our help there as well), and an increasingly Islamist, anti-American Turkish government is beginning to align more with our enemies.  The Salafists, a group that Al Queda is part of, has lifted their flag over our embassies in Tunisia, Mali, Egypt, Sudan, and Yemen, and displays of Anti-Americanism are being carried out throughout the region, occasionally ending in tragedy such as in Libya. While President Obama’s foreign policy has clearly created a a more dangerous and threatening Middle East, allowing nuclear weapons to permeate the Middle East would be truly catastrophic.

On August 30th, the International Atomic Energy Agency reported that the Iranian Nuclear program has accelerated and that Iran has doubled the number of high-speed centrifuges at their mountain bases outside of Qom. Regardless of Iran’s movement of enriched uranium towards other ends in the short term (Israel has pushed its critical point back half a year), the immunity zone hasn’t changed. This zone is the point at which countries can no longer effectively do anything about Iranian’s nuclear capability, and it hasn’t changed since the summer because Iran is currently working on their deeply buried nuclear Fordow facility. Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak says Iran will develop the bomb by “next Spring or Early Summer”; so clearly, the time for action is dwindling. Iran is showing no signs of heeding President Obama’s words or reacting to our allegedly “crippling” economic sanctions. As Iran moves closer to accomplishing it’s nuclear ambitions, one truth should be undeniably clear for all to see: allowing the world’s most dangerous regime to acquire the world’s most dangerous weapons would be a disaster of epic proportions

The United States needs to do more. Obviously sanctions and diplomatic talk are preferable to red lines and threats, but once the aforementioned tactics don’t lead to any change in behavior, more aggressive tactics become necessary. It is time for us, as the United States of America, to be strong in our resolve, and to make Iran aware that we will not wait by idly as they acquire a nuclear arsenal. Unfortunately, the Obama administration has done the opposite. Instead of conveying US strength to the Iranians, our country has been strung along by Obama’s refusal to acknowledge that sanctions and diplomacy don’t work when our opponent thirsts for our destruction.  The strong sanctions that Obama frequently talks about should have been implemented way earlier, and the only reason they came into effect at all is because Congress put pressure on Obama to accept them. Obama’s actions (after first ignoring the Iranian people’s protests to uproot the genocidal regime) include trying to cooperate with Ahmadinejad by showing that our two countries can work together if only they abandoned their quest for nuclear weapons. He asked the mullahs to allow the “Islamic Republic of Iran to take it’s rightful place in the community of nations,” apparently ignoring the fact that Iran supplies Al-Qaeda and Hezbollah with deadly weapons and opposes our forces militarily in both Iraq and Afghanistan, helping to return both into a hotbed of terrorism (After Obama falsely claimed to have ended the Iraq War).

This strategy was absurd from the beginning: even without a nuclear bomb Iran would still be a repressive regime wanting to spread radical Islam, incite massive genocide and suppress domestic freedoms. Obama’s desire to cooperate with Iran’s government is contrasted clearly by Romney’s repeated stance that Ahmadinejad be arrested by the UN Genocide Convention for inciting genocide. While not a strategy of nuclear prevention, this difference in positioning between the two candidates shows a clear deviation in attitude and resolve towards our gravest security threat. Romney’s position shows his belief that that the government of Iran is not one that can be tip-toed around, but rather a threat (with or without nuclear weapons) that needs to be handled. I am not saying that we should declare war on Iran, but it is important to let them know that continuing their behavior and rhetoric will not be tolerated, because despite the past 4 years, a proposed red line from America still resonates around the world. As such, Romney’s words are a positive change from four years of hesitancy and leading from behind.

To the surprise of few, Obama’s plan has failed miserably, for it has emboldened Iran and given the regime more time to operate. For the past 4 years, while we have acted diplomatically and squeezed the Iranian people of economic resources (the people, not the regime responsible) they have continued accelerating their program and getting ever closer to the point of no return. At the same time that Obama tells the American people he is preventing Iran from achieving nuclear weapons, Iran continues to build weapons, demonize our country, and ignore the Obama administration. Instead of drawing a red line on Iran’s radical regime, Obama’s administration has thrown all of its energy in condemning and trying to prevent a possible Israeli attack against those that wish them dead. As Prime Minister Netanyahu has exclaimed, “Those that fail to put red lines in front of the Iranians, don’t have the moral capability to put red lines before the state of Israel.” While not surprising, given the Obama’s administration’s absurd penchant for blaming Israeli settlements (including those in Jewish areas of Jerusalem that have been under construction since 1993) for the Arab-Israeli conflict, and demanding a settlement freeze as a precondition to negotiate (without even making the PA acknowledge Israel’s right to exist) this rhetoric reprimanding and threatening a friend instead of an enemy is truly perplexing. Romney’s affinity for Israel and his more obvious understanding of the threat that radical Islam poses to the West makes it difficult to believe a Romney administration would put such pressure on a US ally instead of an enemy.

Bret Stephens, in a great recent article on Commentary, wrote of a future in which the Iranian regime is thrown into a corner by their revolting populace, after having achieved nuclear weapons, and starts to spiral out of control. This situation is becoming increasingly possible, given the recent developments in the Middle East and Iran’s proximity to nuclear weapons.  What would the mullahs do, knowing they are soon to be defeated? They certainly wouldn’t fear retaliation (not that they ever have), for they are about to be run out of power: Would Iran bomb Israel as its last terrorist act? Would they finally aspire to wipe out the Jewish people? To them, it would be a noble last act to wipe out the “cancerous Zionists.” It is a horrifying possibility to contemplate…

I recently read an excellent article in the Jerusalem Post discussing the Jewish mantra of “Never Again”. The message inherent in this maxim is powerful and has been passed down through the generations: We as Jews must always be able to defend ourselves and never again let our fate be dictated by others. Well, as Jonathon Rosenblum wrote, the moment of choice for American Jews to do our part to ensure a safer future for both America and Israel is a day away.  Even ignoring President Obama’s known hostility towards Israel, his personal connection to, and affinity for, the Palestinian narrative, and his appeasement strategy in the Middle East, he is the worst possible leader for American Jews and the Jewish state because of his inaction with regard to Iran over the past 4 years.  His mishandling of Iran and his naïvety about Iran’s vision makes him a dangerous candidate to lead us out of the Iranian Nuclear Crises. President Obama’s reelection would pose security threats to America and place Israel in a strategically vulnerable and scarily isolated place.

The opinions, facts and any media content here are presented solely by the author, and The Times of Israel assumes no responsibility for them. In case of abuse, report this post.